Aram Koopman lets YOU rate YOUR resolution!

[Knootoss]

From the World Assembly office of the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Your Excellencies,

People keep asking me what I think of their resolutions. Sometimes they are begging for support, and sometimes they just want me to help me draft something that is not a poorly written, ineffective, loophole-ridden communist, world government promoting IntFed abomination.

To cater to these people, and also to get the government transparency office off my back, I have produced a little test that you can use to judge the quality of your own resolution. Applying this test to your draft resolution will tell you what I think of it, and also, if it just sucks in general. While you might not care much about my personal opinion, the test also marks off pretty much all of the usual excuses for repealing crap legislation. Address the 'problems' that come out of the test, and your resolution is unlikely to be repealed any time soon.

The questions of the test already assume that your resolution is legal, so don't come crying to me if it gets pulled out of the queue by the Secretariat. It is not a legality test. More of an "Is this sane legislation" test. The questions of the test are based on insights from the science of Public Administration and much bitter, jaded legislative experience in the United Nations and the World Assembly. My liberal and NatSov biases are freely acknowledged, and should be expected.

Sincerely,


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

This government communication has been printed on biodegradable paper. All carbon emissions associated with the creation of this government communication have been off-set with new plantings in Colombia, using the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, sponsored by the Pink Bunny Cola Corporation and the Global Hell Group. For more information about the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, consult http://www.futureproof.kn.

Included as an attachment:

World Assembly Resolution Score Chart
Technical and national sovereignty considerations. To be used once plausible legality has been achieved.

UNIVERSALITY	10 points: The resolution tries to accomplish a goal that all reasonable governments can consider "just" or "worthwhile". 0 points: The resolution tries to accomplish the goal of a particular political ideology, in the face of widespread opposition. -10 points: ... the goal is one of the following: restricting abortion, restricting male circumcision, banning nuclear weapons or changing the legality of pot.	0/10
ADDED VALUE	15 points: The resolution is necessary because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the resolution 10 points: The objectives could be accomplished without the resolution, but collective action brings added value over and above what could be achieved by individual or member-state government action alone. 0 points: The resolution simply replaces actions that would otherwise have been taken by individuals or Member States governments, without realising any added value.	0/15
MICROMANAGEMENT	5 points: The resolution ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen 0 points: The resolution mandates decision-making by national governments or the World Assembly when these decisions could be made by individuals, communities or local governments without harm to the objectives of the resolution. -5 points: .. mandating central decision-making actively harms the effectiveness of the resolution, or is a blatant infringement on the rights of individuals or communities.	0/5
LIBERTY	10 points: The resolution deliberately secures greater civil, political or individual liberties for individuals. 5 points: The resolution does nothing to affect individual liberties either way. 0 points: The resolution reduces individual liberties or harms civil rights in the pursuit of its objective. -10 points: The resolution deliberately pursues a reactionary goal of restricting civil, political or individual liberties.	0/10
PROPOSAL CATEGORY	10 points: "International Action": Human Rights, Free Trade, Furtherment of Democracy 5 points: "Added value": International Security, Education and Creativity 0 points:"Self-imposed restrictions": Environmental, Moral Decency, Political Stability, Global Disarmament, Social Justice -10 points: "Domestic meddling": Gambling, Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use, Advancement of Industry	0/10
LENGTH	5 points: The resolution is concise and understandable. 0 points: The resolution is excessively lengthy, uses weasel words and legal jargon, or is needlessly abstract.	0/5
PURPOSE	5 points: The purpose of the resolution is immediately obvious from the title or the preamble, and all provisions of the resolution are in line with this purpose. 0 points: The resolution contains provisions that are more intrusive than the stated purpose would suggest. -5 points:... this is done deliberately, in order to further a highly controversial political agenda.	0/5
PREAMBLE	5 points: The preamble explains the underlying philosophy of the resolution, and explains why the international community must take action. 0 points: The preamble raises irrelevant points, promotes falsehoods or fails to justify why the World Assembly, specifically, should take action.	0/5
BUREAUCRACY	10 points: The resolution avoids establishing a World Assembly Bureaucracy ("Committee"), or adding to the size of an existing World Assembly bureaucracy. 5 points: The resolution creates a World Assembly Bureaucracy that is strictly necessary for the objective of the resolution OR mandates that Member States create a national government bureaucracy. 0 points: The resolution creates a World Assembly Bureaucracy that is not strictly necessary. -5 points: ... the bureaucracy is a "Court" or is authorised to settle disputes through mandatory, binding arbitration. -10 points: ... the "Court" bureaucracy is authorised by the resolution to create its own laws and procedures.	0/10
COST CONTROL	10 points: Implementing the resolution is essentially free, or imposes only nominal financial burdens OR the direct financial benefits for Member State governments outweigh the costs. 5 points: Implementing the resolution is expensive, but the costs can be justified by the benefits in a cost/benefit analysis. 0 points: The objectives of the resolution are prohibitively expensive, and implementation would severely compromise the pursuit of other government priorities. -10 points: Developing Member States cannot reasonably afford to pay for implementation of the resolutions objectives.	0/10
FUNDING METHOD	10 points: Funding is left to Member States OR: the resolution imposes only nominal financial burdens. 5 points: The World Assembly provides funding for the resolution, but not in a way that causes significant imbalances between Member States. 0 points: The resolution creates an unfunded mandate, and does not mention how funding for its objectives is realised. -10 points: Funding for the resolution is explicitly designed to transfer moneys from some Member States to other Member States.	0/10
ECONOMIC IMPACT	10 points: The resolution has a positive impact on the economies of Member States, facilitating international trade making it easier to do business, or removing hurdles to economic development. 5 points: The resolution has a negligible economic impact. 0 points: The resolution hinders international trade, makes it more difficult for companies to do business, or imposes burdens on economic development. -10 points: Implementation of the resolution would severely disrupt the world economy.	0/10
NON-MEMBERS	10 points: The provisions of the resolution give Member States a political, economic, or military advantage over non-members. 5 points: The resolution does not significantly impact the economic, political or military position of Member States in the world. 0 points: The resolution places Member States at a competitive economic, military or political disadvantage. -10 points: The resolution is completely ineffective without the cooperation of non-members.	0/10
MINORITIES	5 points: The resolution addresses the concerns of minorities, such as non-human nations, nations with odd political systems, or nations of a different technology level. 0 points: The resolution must rely on the 'reasonable nation' defence to be legal, in the face of significant opposition from concerned minorities.	0/5

By meeting all of the criteria set out in the World Assembly Resolution Score Chart, a total of 120 points can be obtained. This is the "perfect score" that an ideal proposal would get. Imperfect resolutions score less points. Sometimes, a resolution can score 'negative points' on a particular issue. The World Assembly office of the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss strongly advises against submitting resolutions that have unaddressed "red zones".

WA Ambassador Aram Koopman rates the scores thus:

Score	Appraisal
100-120 POINTS	"I want to have your babies!"
80-100 POINTS	"Probably a good resolution, though it could use improvement in a few areas. I might endorse it with the proper... monetary inducements."
50-80 POINTS	This resolution has.... issues. I'll certainly vote against it, though I might be willing to change my mind after a redraft.
0-50 POINTS	"Burn it with fire and do not look back."
NEGATIVE SCORE	"Is this air force command? I have a nation that I'd like you to bomb... it is urgent."

This government communication has been printed on biodegradable paper. All carbon emissions associated with the creation of this government communication have been off-set with new plantings in Colombia, using the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, sponsored by the Pink Bunny Cola Corporation and the Global Hell Group. For more information about the Pink Bunny Tree™ Carbon Offset Scheme, consult http://www.futureproof.kn.

[Embolalia]

"I always wonder' if Koopman might could make his dislike of bureaucracy any more ironic, though," Ambassador Hywel chides, laying on his South Ytyroedd dialect a little thicker than normal. "After the form-letter responses to proposals, I di'n' think so much. I'm glad to see he's given me surprise once ag'in."

[Grays Harbor]

"I always wonder' if Koopman might could make his dislike of bureaucracy any more ironic, though," Ambassador Hywel chides, laying on his South Ytyroedd dialect a little thicker than normal. "After the form-letter responses to proposals, I di'n' think so much. I'm glad to see he's given me surprise once ag'in."

"Personally, we find Mr Koopman's distaste for bureaucracy to be quite refreshing"

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hmm, I wonder if it forms the next generation of "canned" replies?

We need a system for repeal scoring.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Hmm, I wonder if it forms the next generation of "canned" replies?

We need a system for repeal scoring.

Did the repeal make it through a spellcheck: Y/N
Does it eliminate a resolution which scored poorly on the Aram Koopman test: Y/N
If the answer to both of the above, then you have successfully created a palatable repeal!

Problem solved.

[Knootoss]

The Mallorea and Riva approach sits well with me. Also, this is hardly a "canned" reply. It would take more time to do this policy analysis than to just write down some graffiti in the office of the proposing delegate that explains why the resolution is bad. I'm hoping some nations will consider scorinating their own drafts!


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Unibot II]

5 points: The resolution addresses the concerns of minorities, such as non-human nations, nations with odd political systems, or nations of a different technology level.
0 points: The resolution must rely on the 'reasonable nation' defence to be legal, in the face of significant opposition from concerned minorities.

This is incorrect, the Reasonable Nation Theory concerns the validity of loopholes. But when resolutions don't address some non-humans like "Female Genital Mutilation", the simple defense is that applicability trumps accommodation. If a floating body of sentinent air is not applicable for abortion mandates.. then they're not applicable, abortion mandates don't have to specifically legislate regarding sentient bodies of air.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Mallorea and Riva approach sits well with me. Also, this is hardly a "canned" reply. It would take more time to do this policy analysis than to just write down some graffiti in the office of the proposing delegate that explains why the resolution is bad. I'm hoping some nations will consider scorinating their own drafts!

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ms. Harper meant that the descriptions next to the points might make good canned replies.

I mean, you've made it easier for Ms. Harper to reply to silly drafts.

[Connopolis]

This thread is actually very useful. It should get stickied.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"We find this system to be too bureaucratic. Perhaps the Knootossians would be interested in the Monikian method of rating resolutions?"

1. Is the proposal sovereignty friendly? Y/N
2. Does the proposal have the word 'Repeal' in the title? Y/N
3. Does the proposal actually do something of international scope? Y/N

"If the proposal gets 3 yes-es then we will endorse and definitely vote for. If the Proposal gets 2 there is a 50/50 shot of us endorsing and voting for. If there is 1 or less yes-es we will oppose the resolution. Naturally of course in the 2 yes-es category those yes-es must be on question 1 and question 3."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

2. Does the proposal have the word 'Repeal' in the title? Y/N

That particular criteria may not be helpful for proposals which have genuine international concern, such as statelessness and the ban on genocide.

[Monikian WA Mission]

2. Does the proposal have the word 'Repeal' in the title? Y/N

That particular criteria may not be helpful for proposals which have genuine international concern, such as statelessness and the ban on genocide.

"We would disagree. The less the WA regulates the better we like it. Even so, we do have to review the language of the particular repeal. For instance a repeal of GAR 10 would never get our endorsement. We do not support every repeal that comes down the pike--just most."

[Knootoss]

5 points: The resolution addresses the concerns of minorities, such as non-human nations, nations with odd political systems, or nations of a different technology level.
0 points: The resolution must rely on the 'reasonable nation' defence to be legal, in the face of significant opposition from concerned minorities.

This is incorrect, the Reasonable Nation Theory concerns the validity of loopholes. But when resolutions don't address some non-humans like "Female Genital Mutilation", the simple defense is that applicability trumps accommodation. If a floating body of sentinent air is not applicable for abortion mandates.. then they're not applicable, abortion mandates don't have to specifically legislate regarding sentient bodies of air.

That is a preposterous example. The minorities that Knootoss feels should be accommodated as part of a 'good' proposal include unusual but still recognised groups of non-humans, nations with different technolog, and nations with political systems which do not feature prominently on the "Real World" television programme. It is reasonable enough to make sure that a proposal does not grate such nations.

[Knootoss]

1. Is the proposal sovereignty friendly? Y/N
2. Does the proposal have the word 'Repeal' in the title? Y/N
3. Does the proposal actually do something of international scope? Y/N

This is too... imprecise. First of all, this tool was not created with repeals in mind. The approach of Mallorea and Riva that a reasonably well-written repeal of a bad resolution will get our support holds true. But what this test does do is actually quantify what a "sovereignty friendly" proposal is. There are many variables to "sovereignty friendliness", and I have at least tried to name them all.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"The problem Abram, is that the definition of what is and is not sovereignty friendly is imprecise. The government of Nation A may not have a Problem with the WA doing X while Nation B may have a severe problem with it. The fact of the matter is rather than trying to shoe horn all proposals into a set of tests with points. We Monikians instead subject the whole proposal to dialectical materialism.

"If the dialectic reveals that something is of international scope while not creating more regulation than necessary and allowing nations to tinker in the gray areas we consider it sovereignty friendly enough. That said, most proposals are not sovereignty friendly at all creating needless committees and being written as if they were trying to write a dictionary."

[Knootoss]

Actually, the concern you just raised has already been covered under the 'universality' and 'minorities' ratings.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

OOC: And it is Knootian and Aram! Please.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"While true, we still find the whole thing overly complex, when one can simply subject the proposal to dialectics."

[Knootoss]

That is your prerogative of course.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Mallorea and Riva]

Clearly I need to arrange my method into a shinier listing. Or turn it into a stamp. Or both...

[Connopolis]

I'm gonna put the lin in my sig, just in case I use it in the future. It's pretty useful in my opinion.

[Darenjo]

"Actually, this looks pretty good, although I highly doubt that any of my resolutions would get a high score from you, Aram!"

- Dr. Park

[Bergnovinaia]

Ms. Thekenbail rose out of her chair and firmly embraced the Koopman's hand, while shaking it lightly.

"Now this system, Aram, is truly commendable."

[Darenjo]

"I do believe that, optimistically, that 'Firearms and International Travel' would get 70 points from Aram, which is remarkably close to his 'yes' range considering how much he hates gun control."

- Dr. Park